You are here

War in Syria 4

But lets be clear I am convinced that the Syrian government has engaged in torture in its prisons and I am sure that they have executed people they believed were terrorists. I know they torture people because we used to send people to them for interrogation. However I do not advocate bombing any of the countries nor attempting other forms of regime change that we know that have engaged in torture. That includes not bombing the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia because frankly the people don't deserve to pay for the sins of their rulers.

That's a clear and succinct statement of principle which reflects my views precisely as well.

JKR wrote:

Does President Bashar al-Assad bear any responsibility for the state his country finds itself in?

Will he be allowing for democratic elections in Syria?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but: What business is that of ours?

Just to ask questions like that is, unfortunately, to prepare the ground for intervention and aggression (cf. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Haiti, Honduras, Chile, everywhere on the planet).

When kropotkin talks of the U.S. "enemy du jour", he hits the nail on the head.

Aren't you worried about Darfur? Remember that diversion? The Israel lobby ran that one for years. Now it's Yazidis. Darfur can go fuck itself when it doesn't serve the purpose of the diversionists any more.

Is there some mystery about how U.S. imperialism prepares public opinion for aggression? It used to be: "They're Marxist guerrillas." That's an obsolete term. Now it's: "They're terrorists." Or: "They're dictators." Or: "He's killing his own people and he's going to kill billions more if someone doesn't step in."

But lets be clear I am convinced that the Syrian government has engaged in torture in its prisons and I am sure that they have executed people they believed were terrorists. I know they torture people because we used to send people to them for interrogation. However I do not advocate bombing any of the countries nor attempting other forms of regime change that we know that have engaged in torture. That includes not bombing the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia because frankly the people don't deserve to pay for the sins of their rulers.

That's a clear and succinct statement of principle which reflects my views precisely as well.

JKR wrote:

Does President Bashar al-Assad bear any responsibility for the state his country finds itself in?

Will he be allowing for democratic elections in Syria?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but: What business is that of ours?

Just to ask questions like that is, unfortunately, to prepare the ground for intervention and aggression (cf. Iraq, Libya, Viet Nam, Haiti, Honduras, Chile, everywhere on the planet).

When kropotkin talks of the U.S. "enemy du jour", he hits the nail on the head.

Aren't you worried about Darfur? Remember that diversion? The Israel lobby ran that one for years. Now it's Yazidis. Darfur can go fuck itself when it doesn't serve the purpose of the diversionists any more.

Is there some mystery about how U.S. imperialism prepares public opinion for aggression? It used to be: "They're Marxist guerrillas." That's an obsolete term. Now it's: "They're terrorists." Or: "They're dictators." Or: "He's killing his own people and he's going to kill billions more if someone doesn't step in."

I think it is possible to criticize tyrannical leaders and tyrannical governments without advocating aggressive action toward them and/or their countries. I think being aware of what is happening outside of our borders is the business of global citizens who want to see a more just world.

I think it is possible to criticize tyrannical leaders and tyrannical governments without advocating aggressive action toward them and/or their countries.

Oh, I agree. But how did you forget to note that our own country is actually, in fact, taking aggressive action toward them? Or did you think Canada cleared its bombing mission, followed by its so-called "training" mission, with the internationally recognized government of Syria?

Quote:

I think being aware of what is happening outside of our borders is the business of global citizens who want to see a more just world.

Agreed. But not sending bombers or troops without the consent of the countries involved, or U.N. approval. Agreed? Otherwise, we're back to the bullshit about Iraq's WMD and Gaddafi slaughtering "his own people".

When you and others start talking at length about the murderous crimes of Saudi Arabia and other close friends and trading partners of Canada, I'll be a little more sanguine about our "global citizen" responsibility.

"...During discussion of the political situation, the Central Committee deems that in light of the escalation of imperialist aggression against Syria, we must mobilize all forces and capabilities to withstand the brutal aggression, defending the country's independence, sovereignty and unity of the national territory.

The escalation of imperialist aggression by the widening military operations of NATO forces such as bombing Syrian military sites by US Air and Atlantic [NATO allies'] weapons, as happened in Deir al Zoor, and power stations in Aleppo,

and by increasing the presence of American military forces and their allies [CANADA] in certain parts of the country, whether in the form of military bases, or military advisers and experts for many armed groups, as well as the participation of special units with the insurgent organizations' operations, which have a terrorist nature.

As Turkey has (this poisoned canine of NATO [Canada is another]) occupied some parts of the soil of the homeland in the north of Syria, along with a multi-faceted support provided by Turkey to the terrorist organizations in various forms for several years and increased the ferocity of these organizations including gruesome criminal acts such as mass murder of the civilian population, including children, women and elderly.

After the hostile forces lost hope of the possibility of overthrowing the regime in Syria and therefore, the elimination not only of the anti-imperialist national approach, but of the actual national independence, these forces focused on the depletion of Syria through the sustainability of war operations, targeting to divide it even into spheres of influence, as the first phase of the plan which aims to eliminate the liberal fortress in the Arab world scheme

Although there are many participating parties in support of American imperialism - European imperialism, the reactionary states in the region, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Zionist Israel - the main beneficiary of this aggression is American and global Zionism, because it serves them to achieve their colonial project..."

Is it out of line to point out that there is a report of torture and executions in a prison there?

Absolutely not out of line, completely legitimate to point that out. Just as it is legitimate to point out how previous reports from the same or similar sources have served to justify aggression, bombing, "regime change", etc. in other countries of the region and elsewhere. And just as it is legitimate to question the veracity and the motivation of such reports.

"Our biggest problem is our allies...they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad - except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and al Qaeda and extremist Jihadis coming from other parts of the world..."

"The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria, stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee toddler who drowned in 2015 on his way to Europe told RT. 'Our country is being destroyed by outsiders', said Tima Kurdi - a Syrian-born-Canadian lawyer and the aunt of Alan Kurdi..."

Why is it that you never talk about the war crime of aggression? Why is it you don't talk about the violations of human rights by arming insurgents in order to initiate regime change. That is the ultimate war crime but somehow or other you think that it is no longer a war crime but a public good.

Lets see in East Aleppo the vast majority of the people chose to move into the government held areas and a small number of terrorists and terrorist supporters were bussed out of the region. I expect that they will continue to offer reconciliation and reintegration to any Syrian that is willing to put down their arms and work within the political framework that was set up as a result of the referendum that passed with an overwhelming majority.

You mean why should I say the things I say, rather than repeating the things you and others say already?

Because, as Unionist said, it is all fair, and besides, others here seem to be taking care of those perspectives.

My point in stepping in here is to counter the slightly ridiculous casting of Amnesty International as nothing but a tool of western propaganda. Guess the Bush crew didn't get the memo.

It is fair comment, especially given the other evidence to back up what they are saying as at least in part believable. And nothing you say there is a rebuttal of (or even relevant to) my point, or of the accusation of torture and mass executions.

So you have no answer. You don't give a fuck about the war crime of aggression. You have been spouting the NATO and Western line on every international thread since you joined seven years ago. You believe and propogate Western propaganda consistently and so there is no debating issues since you are blinded by the imperial light.

How is it "spouting the NATO and western line" to defend Amnesty International from an accusation of bias by pointing out that many in western nations (and their allies) also consider AI to be biased against them?

And not that I care what you might think my motives are, but what is the problem, considering which perspectives actually dominate these threads? Is that dominant perspective so unstable that it is actually threatened by people who raise the questions of hospital bombings, torture, and executions? And that all this energy is thrown into undermining any organization (like AI, like MSF) which points out that these atrocities are taking place?

If you are truly arguing for a better way, this might not be the hill to fight that on. Just a suggestion.

If you are truly arguing for a better way you should try being objective enough to realise that AI has been used by the US in the past (that is what they say) and it looks like they are being used in this case too. Every time the US wants to rain down death and destructrion on a non-compliant nation AI trots out a report damning the evil enemy. Of course they apologize afterwards and beg for foregiveness. But after the Iraq and Libya stories I don't trust them.

Perhaps you could point out where that Mandela quotation mentions sending military forces to South Africa to bomb the bad Afrikaners. Mandela is clearly speaking of non-violent international activism, which both Unionist and kropotkin are in favour of. This is a most dishonest post.

Thanks for reading, listening, and understanding, Michael. It's a rare commodity in these days of shouting.

You are kiddiing, right. It was actually a rather deceitful little bit of bait and switch. We were engaged in a conversation about active and engaged civil society support by Canadians for anti-oppression work overseas. Which Michael then choses to equate with sending in the American military.

Which if nothing else, is a pretty good indication that Michael has never engaged in a scrap of international solidarity work in his life. So lame.

Have Amnesty reports ever been used to justify military intervention? Yes.

Is that Amnesty's fault? Obviously not.

Amnesty issued report after report, year after year, on human rights abuses in Iraq. All of a sudden Bush grabbed one report to try and help justify a military intervention that no one ever seriously believed had anything to do with human rights concerns.

And this is Amnesty's fault? You have got to be kidding!

The one time Amnesty did make a serious error that I recall (the incubator story) they rolled it back as soon as it was exposed as false. (Those regular purveyors of fake news that get cited on Babble pages so regularly should be so accountable!) Amnesty also openly denounced the Bush administration for both complicity in faking the original story and then using the whole human rights case as a fraudulent excuse for intervention.

Amnesty does important, dangerous and difficult work and gets routinely abused by those state and non-state actors whose human rights abuses it exposes to scrutiny. Amnesty also has its reports regularly used by others for their own political (and sometimes military) agendas.

Neither of these predictable sets of of responses diminishes either the importance or the quality of Amnesty's work. Babblers like us around the world (living and babbling in circumstances less secure than our own) appreciate Amnesty's vigilance, commitment and courage.

Kropotkin has refered a number of times to Amnesty making the case for military intervention in Libya (directly or indirectly) and then subsequently having to apologise after the fact for their "mistakes".

FWIW, I do not recall this at all and can find no evidence to support this allegation.

The last Amnesty report to predate the Libya conflict was actually reasonably positive, affirming the new political space opening up in Libya at the time while flagging the standard set of human rights abuses associated with military dictatorships. Its title was "Libya of Tomorrow: What hope for human rights?" You can read the report here:

An Amnesty report mid-conflict (May 2011) is grimmer reading, and flags the usual concerns about extra-judicial killings and war crimes (on all sides). Its title was "The Battle for Libya: Killings, Disappearances and Torture. " You can read it here:

Finally and perhaps most significantly, Amnesty did a further study after the end of the conflict to examine the extent to which human rights abuses as claimed by NATO governments and reported by western media as a justification for military intervention were in fact accurate. I cannot find an on-line version of that report, but a newspaper report can be found here. It states:

Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence...

So, not only did Amnesty not contribute to the NATO narrative as some here have suggested, Amnesty actually challenged it. And certainly never had to apologize after the fact for its reports on human rights in Libya. In fact, if you do a basic google search you will find the joint Amnesty- Human Right Watch report from 2011 widely cited by 'alternative media' as proof positive that NATO forces made up a lot of its most inflammatory reports about Gadaffi sponsored genocide, mass rape, etc.

Of course, these would be the same media sources who today chose to denounce Amnesty and HRW as western puppets for their work on human righst abuses in Syria. But as I have said earlier, for many people in this world and on this board, human rights are not universal, they are just a geo-political convenience. Or inconvenience, as the case may be.

Yup AI is really good at telling the world after the US bombs a country that the justification was mostly all lies. They are not so good at reporting on agression and propaganda in the lead up to the US committing the war crime of aggression.

I can't figure why people can't understand that aggression against a sovereign state is a war crime and it is the worst because it destroys the peace within a country. The crime of aggression is the cause of the misery in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Millions of people are refugees because the West wanted regime change. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result of our governments engaging in regime change. The people of those countries did not ask to have their infrastructure destroyed and large areas of their cities razed leaving millions as refugees. WTF could possible think that we should be engaging in regime change anywhere for any reason after the history of the last 15 years.

Here is the type of report that AI produced in the lead up top NATO bombing the people of Libya back to the middle ages. Of course after all the bombs were dropped they then wrote a report saying that NATO had made most of it up.

Quote:

Amnesty International has accused the Libyan authorities of recklessly shooting at anti-government protesters after the organization learned that at least 46 people had been shot dead by security forces in the last 72 hours.

Sources at al-Jala hospital in Benghazi today told Amnesty International that patients' most common injuries were bullet wounds to the head, chest and neck.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

Were they off at lunch, or they forget to pick up the phone? What happened to produce this embarrassing gaffe?

Again, it seems like a lot of effort to go to to undermine them on reflex, even though we agree that at least part of what they are saying is true, and that the question of who is the biggest evil in the world isn't really a part of this.

Its a silly discussion, with krop trying to make the ridiculous case that because Agent A says something critical about Villain B, and then that gets used by Villain C for his own political purposes - that its all Agent A's fault for being a stooge of Villain C.

The Libya example:

Amnesty: Gaddafi forces have been killing protesters in the streets.

NATO: Geez, given that information, we are going to bomb the shit out of Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

Were they off at lunch, or they forget to pick up the phone? What happened to produce this embarrassing gaffe?

Again, it seems like a lot of effort to go to to undermine them on reflex, even though we agree that at least part of what they are saying is true, and that the question of who is the biggest evil in the world isn't really a part of this.

In February as the US was looking for a reason to invade Libya Amnesty International called on the Security Council to take action based on inaccurate information. In June after the bombs had fallen they then produced a hard hitting report that showed the US propaganda was all bullshit. Much like after the incubator incident.

The question in a thread about Syria is not who is the biggest evil but how to end the civil war that was started by the West. I know that none of the international tribunals will ever hold the US accountable for the war crime of aggression. However I refuse to be a cheerleader for regime change and find it nauseating to see Amnesty International once again stepping up at a critical time to demand that the Security Council take action. I have yet to see their report on any crimes of aggression.

So 6079 why don't you care about the war crime of aggression. You love pointing at the excuses used to justify the crime of aggression without ever talking about the aggression that is the cause of all the suffering and destruction of secular governments for the crime of not being subservient to Western interests,

Why don't I appreciate someone trying to stick their hand up my ass and use me as their ventriloquist dummy, when presumably they have fingers on the end of that hand and can type just fine?

Well the punchline to that is why are the people trying so hard to discredit Amnesty International keeping them front and centre on this thread?

If you go back on the old thread you'll notice that the American aggression line gets pretty regular and heavy play, and generally goes unchallenged.

Except of course people start passing off lies about stuff like hospitals not being bombed, or jumping for joy about the glorious victory.

But really, if you go back and do a count, you will see that I am correct. That side gets steady coverage, with very little flak.

By contrast we had one post about Amnesty International's report on Syrian prisons, which by rights should have been noticed, and passed on. Instead, what seems to be keeping those atrocities - the torture, the hangings - top of this thread is those who seem to want to shut it down.

If you read back, it is actually on that point that I stepped in here. So why should I parrot some unrelated point?

But for the pileon, we would probably be back to the evil western backed ISIL, and the poor beleaguered legimate government of Syria show by now.

Again, I'm not sure why some here are so intent on stamping that one into the ground, but near as I can tell the strategy is working backwards. We have been talking about this for a full week now. We can keep doing this as long as people want.

See, despite Assad's denial there is one thing he and Amnesty agree on - that there is a paper trail verifying that these executions happened. And claims that they were "all terrorists" and there was a process (which is in fact a big part of how Amnesty was able to establish these executions took place) don't back up Syria's claim that the report is "totally untrue". In fact, it is a contradiction.

Quote:

It also says the allegations are "baseless" because executions in Syria follow due process and various stages of litigations.

Amnesty's report says the mostly civilian victims were hanged after military trials that lasted minutes.

"Any foreign forces including those from the US that enter Syria without invitation are invaders, Syrian President Bashar Assad told Chinese media in an interview, noting that no one had given the US troops currently in Manbij permission to be there."

US Intervention in Syria is 'Violation of International Law, Act of War' - Catherine Shakdam

"...Let's start with the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Putin. There's nothing Bibi could have offered Putin - apart from a hazy, unsubstantiated promise to order the powerful Israeli lobby in DC to soften the hysterical, 24/7 Russia demonization..."

"The media lies have been compounded by the shrill rhetoric of fake leftists unable to see...the most determined attempt ever made by the 'west' and its allies to destry an Arab government. These leftists frauds have put themselves in the service of imperialism, Israel and the most reactionary governments in the world."

"We managed to capture these US marines leaving the frontline before being ordered to stop filming,' Phelan says, adding that the US troops are camera-shy 'for a reason', as the Pentagon's official line is that its forces will be kept away from the frontline."

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Canada's JTF2 wasn't lackey-lurking nearby also.

Putin's Red Line in Syria is Not An Invitation For Israel To Play Russian Roulette With Assad